Forum:CT:Three-revert admin amendment

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Three-revert admin amendment
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

While we should take a closer look into Wookieepedia:Three-revert rule (3RR) and probably overhaul the page, there are a few wording issues that stand out, particularly in regards to the role of administrators. I propose some quick fixes due to the egregiousness of the current page:

  1. In the header template, change ". (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)" to "or you may be blocked from contributing to Wookieepedia." — "suspend your account" is really inaccurate since blocked users' Fandom accounts still exist.
  2. Remove "User pages" section entirely. It says 3RR "generally" doesn't apply to user pages unless the offending user is removing a sockpuppet tag, such as {{Confirmedsock}}, and indicates that sockpuppets can be identified by "admins, the arbitration committee, or developers." We have a sockpuppetry policy in place and rely on admins or Fandom staff with the CheckUser tool to identify sockpuppets. If a user violates the sockpuppetry policy, then they should just be blocked for sockpuppetry.
  3. Remove "Enforcement" section entirely. It cites policy from Wikipedia; has vague and unhelpful wording such as "educating users," using "peer pressure" to enforce the policy, and "This is believed by some to be a recent change to the protection policy;" talks about "Administrators blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves;" and is redundant to our newer Blocking policy on how admins should deal with disputes.
  4. Remove "I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do?" section entirely. The section tells users wishing to appeal their block to use e-mail to contact admins who have listed their e-mails—not helpful, to say the least, and we now have a dedicated section to block appeals on the Blocking policy page. It tells users to check if they had been blocked in accordance to the policy—admins have a duty to block responsibly. It tells users that admins simply "may, of course, choose not to" unblock them, and that "Some admins look at the quality of the edits in question. Others do not." Finally, it says "Note that historically, public denunciation of the blocking admin has tended not to gain sympathy"—probably true under certain former admins who are now banned, but this should go straight to the dustbin.

Plus, users who are blocked for violating the three-revert rule should receive a {{Blocked}} message on their talk page that advises them to check out the Blocking policy, which functions as a guide to contacting admins and appealing blocks. The 3RR page should just focus on defining what 3RR is. This clean-up would serve as a first step.

Support

  1. OOM 224 (he/him) 14:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Imperators II(Talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 14:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. I will say that if someone feels they are unjustly blocked, Fandom has a rule in place where they can appeal their block on Community Central. There's no need to email anyone, and most of this is outdated and archaic anyways. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Rsand 30 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Fan26 (Talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Just a suggestion since you may or may not revamp this as you said, but this essay can just be a section of the blocking policy fullstop and doesn't need a whole page. DISRUPT is also basically a 1-clause policy tbf.—spookywillowwtalk 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Also agree with spooky. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Lewisr (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 19:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. Zed42 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  18. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  19. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 21:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  20. Wok142 (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • Agreed, re: spooky's point. The only concern would be whether the "disruption" clause is too vague (and thus be potentially abused) as it is, but the previous overhaul of the blocking policy combined with the principle of 3RR seem like they'd suffice. Related to blocking procedures are warning templates like {{Msg-3RR}} that any user can issue; it's been brought up that there should be some written regulations on their use. OOM 224 (he/him) 13:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)